Overview

In Genesis 24:10-20, Abraham sent his servant (Hebrew עֶבֶד - ebed)
to find a wife for his son Isaac. Rebekah offered water to this servant and his
camels.

This article corrects the common misconception that slavery/servanthood
in the legal code of ancient Israel was comparable to the harsh slavery of other
ancient cultures and the early United States. Rather, in ancient Israel the
institution served as protection against poverty and included numerous safeguards
against abuse. As well as a means of integrating Caananites defeated and captured
because of their sexual abuse and killing of children (Lev 18:6-30, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:9-10, Psalm 106:35, 37-38, 2 Chron 28:3).
Three main points:

The Hebrew word עֶבֶד (ebed) can mean a slave, a servant, or even a highly ranked subordinate.[[ebed]]
Even a king's officials were called "slaves."[[Anchor-page-8246]]

Slave/servanthood was a safeguard against the destitution of poverty.
Rather than face starvation, the poor could sell themselves as indentured servants
to others. But the law was designed so that if all safeguards regarding
social welfare were practiced, then poverty should not exist among ancient Israelites
and this practice would be unnecessary (Deut 15:4).

If every command of the Old Testament were followed, it becomes impossible for masters to treat Israelite or foreign servant-slaves inhumanely:

Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).

If a servant is released, masters were required to send them away with generous
supplies (Deut 15:13-14).

If they leave, they can go and live wherever they want and it's illegal to
force them to return (Deut 23:15-16).

These points are explained in more detail below.

Perspectives of Critics

The moral and legal code for ancient Israel is found in the Old Testament. Some
critics of Judaism and Christianity ignore the majority of this legal code in order
to misrepresent what is actually commanded. For example:

Christopher Hitchens

Journalist and atheist[[hitchens-photo]]

The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans...[[Hitchens-2008]]

Sam Harris

Neuroscientist and atheist[[harris-photo]]

The entire civilized world now agrees that slavery is an abomination.... The
Bible also makes it clear that every man is free to sell his daughter into
sexual slavery. [Exodus 21:7-11] The only real restraint God counsels on the
subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure
their eyes or their teeth.[[Harris-2006-page-14]] [Exodus 21:20]

The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying
the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that
it is patently evil to own them and treat them like farm equipment. It
is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this epiphany - and yet, it had
to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South,
among the most pious Christians this country has ever known.[[Harris-2006-page-18]]

Sam Harris is referring to verses like Exodus 21:20: "When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property."

Hebrew עֶבֶד (ebed) can mean a slave or a highly-ranked subordinate

The officials who reported to Pharaoh and influenced his decisions were called
"slaves" of Pharaoh. So were the officials who had other slaves
under them. This can be seen in the following excerpts from Exodus, among
others. The words translated from Hebrew עֶבֶד (ebed) are bolded:

Verse

Text

Exodus 5:21

"You have brought us into bad odor with Pharaoh and his officials"

Exodus 7:10

"Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his officials"

Exodus 7:20

"In the sight of Pharaoh and of his officials he lifted up the
staff and struck the water"

Exodus 9:20

"Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried
their slaves and livestock off to a secure place."

Here, the same word עֶבֶד (ebed) is translated as either "officials"
or "slaves" depending on the context.

Exodus 9:34

"Pharaoh... sinned once more and hardened his heart, he and his officials."

Exodus 10:1

"the Lord said to Moses, 'Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart
of his officials'"

Exodus 14:5

"When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the minds of Pharaoh
and his officials were changed toward the people,
and they said, 'What have we done, letting Israel leave our service?'"

The usual term for "slave" in Mesopotamia was wardum, which at the same time
was used not only to designate an actual slave, but also dependence in the broad
sense or servility, thus corresponding to Heb ebed, Aram abda, Old
Pers bandaka, Gk doulos, etc. In the ANE [Ancient Near East],
all subjects of the king including even highly placed officials, were regarded as
slaves of the king.[[Anchor-page-8246]]

Nature of Servitude in Ancient Israel

Laws to safeguard against poverty and prevent indentured servitude

Ruth meets Boaz. Painting by Harold Copping, 1923.

In Ruth 2:7, Ruth gathered about 21 liters of barley in a single day by gleaning
a field.

In ancient Israel, indentured servitude was a consequence of poverty. If "any
of your kin fall into difficulty... and sell themselves" (Lev 25:47.) However,
many safeguards existed to prevent poverty from happening at all:

Israelites were required to lend to their fellow countrymen in poverty,
"If there is among you anyone in need... you should rather open your hand, willingly
lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be.", otherwise "your neighbor
might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt." (Deut 15:7-9)

When harvesting from the field extra food must be left for the poor: "you
shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your
harvest... you shall leave them for the poor and the alien" (Lev 19:9-10).
This was an effective charity. In Ruth 2:7, Ruth requests "Please,
let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the reapers.’" and in one day
she was able to gather "about an ephah [21.14 liters] of barley." (2:17)

Creditors could not charge interest, or keep vital supplies such as blankets during
cold nights. (Ex 22:25-27)

Workers were to be paid the same day of their service. (Lev 19:13)

It was required that the poor not be ignored in complaints of oppression: "You
shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits." (Ex 23:6). "Defend
the rights of the poor and needy." (Prov 31:9)

Helping the poor was considered a means to know God: "He judged the cause of the
poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? says
the Lord." (Jer 22:16)

Blessings were promised to the generous: "Some give freely, yet grow all the richer;
others withhold what is due, and only suffer want" (Prov 11:24). "Whoever
is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full" (Prov 19:17).
"Whoever gives to the poor will lack nothing, but one who turns a blind eye
will get many a curse." (Prov 28:27)

Anyone who injures someone else in a fight must compensate them for loss
of time and provide care for them until they are healed. (Ex 21:19)

Family members were to help each other repurchase their land if they fell into debt
and lost it. (Lev 25:23-34)

Women who became widows with no male heirs had the right to gain an heir by their
husbands’ brothers, thereby securing a son to care for them in their old age. (Deut
25:5-10)

God promised to kill by the sword anyone who hurt widows or orphans. (Ex 22:22-24)

Foreigners, orphans, and widows were given a tenth of the annual produce once every
three years. (Deut 14:28)

The year of jubilee (once every 50 years) was a comprehensive program of debt cancellation
and the complete restoration of each family’s ancestral property, which granted
the poor a fresh start. (Lev 25:8-22)

Israel was told that if these failsafes were followed, "There will... be no
one in need among you" (Deut 15:4). Without poverty there was no need for
the destitute to sell themselves into slavery. Later, God casts judgment on
Israel for their failure to care for the poor:

Amos 2:6-7: Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and
for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous
for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals— they who trample the
head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of
the way"

Laws to protect foreigners

"You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you
were aliens in the land of Egypt" (Ex 23:9). " You shall not withhold the
wages of poor and needy laborers, whether other Israelites or aliens who reside
in your land in one of your towns." (Deut 24:14)

"The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall
love the alien as yourself" (Lev 19:34). " You shall also love the stranger,
for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut 10:19)

Judges were required to give equal treatment to foreigners: "Give the members of
your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another,
whether citizen or resident alien" (Deut 1:16). "You shall have one law for
the alien and for the citizen." (Lev 24:22)

Part of the harvest each year was to be left in the fields for foreigners to collect
for themselves: "you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien" (Lev 23:22).

Foreigners, orphans, and widows were given a tenth of the annual produce once every
three years. (Deut 14:28)

Foreigners were legally allowed to own Israelites as servants. (Lev 25:47)

Laws to protect Israelite servants

"If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall
support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take interest
in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live
with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide
them food at a profit... You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall
fear your God." (Lev 25:35-43)

Lifelong servitude of Israelites was forbidden. They must be released after
7 years without debt and their family units must be maintained unless the servant
agreed to do otherwise. (Ex 21:2-5, Deut 15:12, Lev25:40-41)

Capturing Israelites to be slaves during civil war was forbidden (2 Chron 28:10-11)

After releasing a servant, they must be sent away with generous supplies. (Deut
15:13-14)

If a servant declared "he loves you and your household, since he is well off with
you" (Deut 15:16-17) he can chose to stay for life, presumably to allow elderly
or injured servants security in their old age.

Laws to protect both foreign and Israelite servants

Servant/slaves were required to have a day off once a week on the Sabbath. (Ex 23:12,
Deut 5:14)

If they pack their bags and leave they can go and live wherever they want: "Slaves
who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They
shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your
towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them." (Deut 23:15-16)

Servant/slaves were not to be slandered (Prov 30:10).

Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).

Any servant/slave who received a permanent injury was to be freed
(Ex 21:26-27). Any masters who killed a servant/slave was to be punished
(Ex 21:20), presumably in the way of Ex 21:12, "Whoever strikes a person mortally
shall be put to death".

It was a sin for a master to sleep with a female servant who was pledged to someone
else. He must pay her compensation but she is not considered guilty (Lev 19:20-21).
Israelite Sexual relations foreigners who followed other gods was forbidden
outright (Num 25:1, 5) unless they married them (Deut 21:10-15).

Children of foreign servant/slaves may have become part of the nation
of Israel and fell under the native Israelite laws, since heritage seemed to be
determined by the household you were born in (Gen 17:12-13, Lev. 22:11).

Servant/slaves could likely own property (2 Sam 16:4).

Servant/slaves could inherit their master's household if there
was no other heir (Gen 15:3) and perhaps even if they are more worthy than the
true heirs (Prov 17:2).

However, foreigner servant/slaves were not released after 7 years (Lev 25:46, Joshua
9:27). But as mentioned, Deut 23:15-16 allowed for them to run away and settle wherever
they chose.

General commands against injustice and oppression

"learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead
for the widow." (Isaiah 1:17)

"Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor
anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan,
and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place." (Jeremiah 22:3)

"The righteous know the rights of the poor; the wicked have no such understanding."
(Prov 29:7)

Servitude in Ancient Israel was unlike early U.S. chattel slavery

Not the same as slavery in Ancient Israel

In 1853, the well-known abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote:

The legal power of the master amounts to an absolute despotism over body and soul,
and there is no protection for the slave’s life or limb, his family relations, his
conscious, nay more, his eternal interests.[[Stowe-1853]]

Likewise, Yale's Anchor Bible Dictionary helps tells us the word translated
as "slave" had a much broader definition than the word we use today:

The usual term for "slave" in Mesopotamia was wardum, which at the same time was
used not only to designate an actual slave but also dependence in the broad sense
or servility, thus corresponding to Heb ebed, Aram abda,
Old Pers bandaka, Gk doulos, etc. In the ANE [Ancient Near East],
all the subjects of the king, including even highly placed officials, were regarded
as slaves of the king.[[Anchor-page-8246]]

Passages such as Deuteronomy 15:16-17 support the view that (if all regulations were
followed) servant/slavery in the Old Testament could serve the best interest of
the servant/slave, presumably by providing security and economic well-being:

But if he says to you, “I will not go out from you,” because he loves you and your
household, since he is well off with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust
it through his earlobe into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. You
shall do the same with regard to your female slave.

Consider how different slavery would have been in the early United States even
if only a small number of the Old Testament regulations were kept:

Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death. (Ex 21:16). But
slavery in the U.S. south started from kidnapping.

If a servant/slave ran away, they would not have to return and could live anywhere
they chose. (Deut 23:15)

If slavery were not based on race but instead was a means to avoid destitution in
poverty.

In the early U. S. it was Christians who fought hardest for emancipation.

Non-Christian historian Robert Kenny wrote:

Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality—racial,
class, gender—was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice
by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for
aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? ... Hume,
Voltaire, and Kant saw the African—the non-European, generally—as
beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them
(particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the
European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who
fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration
not from philosophy but from 'superstitious religion'. It was from the Evangelical
Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.[[Kenny-2008]]

Servitude in Ancient Israel was far better than other ancient Near East civilizations

This is not to argue that being relatively better than other ANE civilizations is
a justification for slavery/servanthood in the Old Testament in itself. See
the arguments above for that.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary:

We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human
beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters... In contrast
to many ancient doctrines, the Hebrew law was relatively mild toward the slaves
and recognized them as human beings subject to defense from intolerable acts, although
not to the same extent as free persons.[[Anchor-page-8255]]

Historian Paul Johnson:

These dreadful laws [of Hammurabi] are notable for the ferocity of their physical
punishments, in contrast to the restraint of the Mosaic Code and the enactments
of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which sprang from it.[[Johnson-2003]]

Christian theologian Robin A Perry wrote in 2004:

Consider the centrality of property offences in the Laws of Hammurabi. Despite
the fact that the laws in the "Book of the Covenant" are very similar to these laws,
they clearly regard crimes against the person as far more serious than property
offences.[[Perry-2004]]

Old Testament ethicist Christopher Wright wrote in 2013:

Three Old Testament civil laws are quite unparalleled in any other ancient Near Eastern
code. Exodus 21:20-21 and 21:26-27 take up the case of slaves injured or killed
by their own masters, and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 grants asylum to a runaway slave.
No other ancient near Eastern law has been found that holds a master to account
for the treatment of his own slaves (as distinct from injury done to the slave of
another master), and the otherwise universal law regarding runaway slaves was that
they must be sent back, with severe penalties for those who failed to comply.[[Wright-2013]]

Common Objections

Does this passage say that "every man is free to sell his daughter into sexual
slavery" as Sam Harris argues?[[Harris-2006-page-14]] Exodus 21:7-11:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the
male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for
himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to
a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her
for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another
wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of
the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall
go out without debt, without payment of money.

Is this prostutution or an agreement of servitute/arranged marriage? Prostitution
was forbidden by Lev 19:29, "Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute,
that the land not become prostituted and full of depravity." The word for
prostitute is Hebrew האבת, (zanah) which is defined as "to commit fornication,
be a harlot, play the harlot".[[zanah]] However the word for "slave" in Exodus
21:7 is Hebrew אָמָה (’amah) which refers to a female handmaid who could become
a concubine or wife.[[amah]] "If he designates her for his son" indicates this was
an arranged marriage, and the financial circumstances of a man selling his daughter
suggest this was a plan to get the daughter into a better lifestyle than the poverty
of her parents.

Objection 2: "Exodus 21:20-21 allows physically abusing slaves"

Does this give a master free reign to beat his servant as much as he wants so long
as he doesn't kill him?

When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately,
the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there
is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

Critics often claim this verse gives slave/servant-masters the right to unjust
physical abuse. But if every command in the Old Testament is followed, it's impossible
to treat a servant-slave (Hebrew uses the same word for both) in an inhumane
way. Imagine two contexts in which Exodus 21:20-21 can be taken:

Interpretation 1: Israelites used it as a license for physical
abuse against their servant/slaves, for any reason at all, up to but not including
death.

Interpretation 2:It was a regulation governing
physical punishment in response to crimes, possibly such as theft, assault, or
attempted child sacrifice (popular among the foreigners taken as servant/slaves,
Lev 18:21, Deut 12:31).

Acting in terms of the first interpretation violates many other commands in the Old
Testament:

"You must not oppress a foreigner" Ex 23:9

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love
your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18)

"The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you;
so you must love him as yourself." (Lev 19:34)

"you must love the resident foreigner." (Deut 10:19)

"Learn to do what is right! Promote justice! Give the oppressed reason
to celebrate! Take up the cause of the orphan! Defend the rights of
the widow!" (Isaiah 1:17)

And many more above. Therefore since interpretation #1 is contradictory, it cannot
be correct and we should prefer interpretation #2. Otherwise it must be argued that
beating a servant/slave without just cause is still loving him (Lev 19:34,38),
promoting justice, and fighting oppression (Ex 23:8, Isaiah 1:17)!

A Hypothetical Scenario

Deut 12:31 says the Canaanites "would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods."

The nations of Canaan had carried out incest with children/grandchildren and performed
child sacrifice by fire (Lev 18:6-30, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:9-10, Psalm 106:35, 37-38,
2 Chron 28:3). Israel was commanded to fight against them and take them as
servant/slaves to end these atrocities (Lev 25:44). Suppose a captured Canaanite
was found about to throw his infant daughter into a raging fire as a sacrifice to
Molech. With no prison system in place, physical beating seems more than appropriate
to deter such heinous acts from ever happening again.

Finally, if the punishment causes any permanent bodily damage, the servant is free
to go with any debt erased (Ex 21:26-27). Any master who killed a servant/slave were
to be punished (Ex 21:20), presumably in the way of Ex 21:12, "Whoever strikes a
person mortally shall be put to death." A master that beat a servant/slave
within an inch of his life was within an inch of his own life as well.

If discipline was too harsh the servant/slave could simply run away,
live wherever they chose, and it was illegal to make them go back: "Slaves
who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They
shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your
towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them." (Deut 23:15-16)

Objection 3: "Leviticus 25:44-46 allows perpetual slaves"

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around
you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them
from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you,
who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep
them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.
These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule
over the other with harshness.

The nations of Canaan had carried out incest with children/grandchildren and performed
child sacrifice by fire (Lev 18:6-30, Deut 12:31, Deut 18:9-10, Psalm 106:35, 37-38).
Removing the children from these situations was a moral imperative. Commands
like Lev 19:34 guarded against wrongdoing: "The foreigner who resides with you must
be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself".

As mentioned before, Deut 23:15-16 commands that if these were violated, the slave/servant
can simply run away, live wherever they chose, and it was illegal to make them go
back. But doesn't "you may enslave them perpetually" contradict this? In
terms of a contract, marriage is intended to last until death. But there
are still regulations for what should happen if that contract fails, and this interpretation
of the "escape clause" seems the most parsimonious in resolving these two commands.

Objection 4: Numbers 31

Objection 5: "Slavery is morally wrong in any circumstance"

Given that Hebrew עֶבֶד (ebed) can mean a subordinate of any priveledge, and
that the other Old Testament comamnds make it impossible for masters to
treat Israelite or foreign servant-slaves inhumanely, it makes it not only difficult,
but ethnocentric to equate it with the modern English connotation of slavery.

Moreso, this objection itself is misguided because it assumes morality can be objectively
defined apart from God. Suppose we are the product of evolution alone, and
evolution programmed our minds to think that rape and murder were moral
acts. We would then condemn the Old Testament for its rejection of them. Perhaps
evolution even produced such a conviction very strongly. But God does not
exist, there is no objective means to define in which morality we are intended
to operate. And one viewof morality is no more right or wrong than any
other. Wll morality woudl be no more than personal preference.

But if God designed us for a particular purpose, then morality is merely what God
intends for us to do. Since it is a contradiction to freely violate ones own
intentions, it is impossible for God intentions (as described in the Old Testament
law) to be immoral.

[[Stowe-1853]]Stowe, Harriet Beecher. "A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin." 1853.
Page 39.
This book was published to document the veracity of the depiction of slavery in Stowe's 1852 anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin

[[Wright-2013]]Wright, Christopher. "Old Testament Ethics for the People
of God." 2013. Page 292.
Mirrors: Local Screenshot

Excluding material from third parties, all content on The Berean Archive is placed under the CC0 1.0 Universal "Public
Domain" license unless denoted otherwise.
Use of media from other websites is believed to meet the criteria for fair use.